iwebber

What are we meant to call it? As a foreigner who visits semi regularly, I used to call it San Fran but a few years ago someone said only tourists call it that, it should be called Frisco. What was the objection to Frisco? What is the culturally acceptable, universally unoffensive shortening for San Francisco? Or, at least, what do the locals call it?

Just abruptly switching off like that is nearly always power... Have you checked you've plugged in all the power cords to all the power sockets on the motherboard? I believe there are 3 on yours, standard ATX 24 pin, and two 8 pin sockets. Check they are all connected and seated properly. Same with the graphics card, that's a power hungry beast you're running, make sure it's getting all the power it needs and the power plug(s?) are seated correctly. Check the power supply manual (sorry, not the most exciting, AI may be able to help here) to see which power supply cables or sockets to use to balance the load on the power supply internal rails. If none of that works you may be looking at a faulty motherboard (or power supply - although unlikely you'd have 2 with the same problem) or a faulty/intermittent cable/plug. This is one of the hardest and frustrating problems to have and worth paring back the computer as much as you can to isolate the problem, good luck.

Massive fan of RFP in it's day, haven't used it for ages, indeed haven't used FS9 since P3Dv4 and haven't used that since about 2 years ago... However, I'm a digital hoarder... https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gvrp8w3q7e2b5is0gmom2/RFP.7z?rlkey=88lo36pyyi5fbadykxd5og021&st=grdm5w0u&dl=0 Hope this helps, Ian

Try AI Aircraft Editor, along with Model Converter (MCX) you should be able to check your AI aircraft installs. https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/ai-aircraft-editor-version-4-2-1-released.458324/ https://www.scenerydesign.org/modelconverterx/ HTH Ian

What everyone else said is right and also, from memory (it's been 10 years since I flew the A32X) the autothrottle didn't always do what you expected. I recall being on final and the autothrottle happily letting the speed drop a few knots low, then at about 100ft suddenly realising and stuffing on a fistful of power. As the thrust levers don't move, unless you were looking at the ECAM at the time you wouldn't really notice until the power came on. Let's just say that it could 'destabilise' the approach. It didn't always do it but when it did it caused a bit of sphincter exercise, especially if it was a challenging landing already.

Plan fuel - not required - used for planning purposes before you've been refueled (I think) Crz alt - Put your cruise alt in here, tells VNAV what the cruise alt is for the inflight performance calcs. Crz wind - not required - used to optimise the arrival time and fuel calcs. Most plans will have an average wind or, failing that, a top of climb wind. Top of Climb OAT - not required - as above, usually on the plan Only the cruise alt is required and as to where to find this info, it very much depends on what format the simbrief file (brief?) is. Hope this helps,

Do you mean this one? https://library.avsim.net/search/basic/root/Weather Radar VC %26 pop-up Gauge V 1.0

As Rick said, in the US it's very strictly mandated that you shouldn't fly over 250kts below 10000ft (unless aircraft performance requires you to) but in the rest of the world they're less rigid about it. It makes the ATCer's life easier to have everyone at similar speeds (for spacing and turn radius etc) so the rule's on the books and they expect it (and we usually fly it) but if it's not too busy (or sometimes if you're getting in the way they will ask you) you can request high speed and they'll happily grant it. Some aircraft (757?) have a windshield protection speed which is roughly 250 below 10 so they would probably respect it worldwide. The big gotcha that often gets non US operaters (in the US) is when the ATCer says "no speed restriction" as most (non US) people believe this means "no speed restriction". In the States the ATCer doesn't have the authority to cancel the 250 below 10 speed restriction so what they mean is "you don't have to comply with any of the SID/STAR/previous ATC speed restrictions but you do have to obey the 250 below 10 speed restriction". And equally, when a US operator (not in the US) is told to "maintain high speed" the ATCer is expecting them to "maintain high speed" and not "maintain high speed until 10000ft and then slow down". It's all part of the rich tapestry of international travel.

Check that the voltage required for XMP is being correctly set by the BIOS. I had a board that said it was delivering 1.35v but the hardware monitor in the BIOS showed it as 1.32v. It gave me the kind of problems you're experiencing. When I bumped it up a bit (I think I typed in 1.38v which showed about 1.35v) everything worked as it should. I've never come across an XMP profile that didn't work. Failing that, test each stick individually, could be one of them is faulty. Good luck, Ian

Ah, the memories... G-BKVB, a 110ST, was the first I ever took the controls of... My only recollection of it was reversing over Kent on a particularly windy day... Better at slow speeds than fast, the Ralleye...

Centre runway's closed at the moment... or at least it was last time I was there

I believe it's from the game "Halo"...

The track message shows the validity times of each track (https://www.notams.faa.gov/common/nat.html) It's usually 0100-0800z eastbound and 1130z-1900z westbound but whatever it says in the track message is correct. I don't really use simbrief so I don't know how to select an alternative. All of this is irrelevant though, if you reach 30W outside of the time window for your selected track, you'll get the error message you initially posted about.

Define 'correctly'. Do you reach 30W between the active track hours of 0100z to 0800z? If not, the track isn't valid anymore and you'll see that message. At the planning stage, the system won't know what time you'll reach 30W so it's impossible for it to know if it's valid or not. It's only when you actually generate the plan that it figures it out and then tells you.

So everything is working exactly as advertised. For the record, in Belgium you are GMT +2 so at 7:20 GMT it's 9:20 local. Your AI flightplan says departure at 7:20, this is in GMT, so when you see it push about 9:20 local it's spot on. Hope this helps, Ian

No, an engine failure in a twin is a land at nearest suitable, they would have dumped fuel and returned to LAX. And, No, according to the wiki article you quoted, "BA said they hadn't changed their procedures" so their flight continuation policy remains the same and even today a jumbo (or 380) would/could continue to destination on three engines (still 50% more than the 777 departed with). Flight safety has improved and so has our evaluation of it, if a 777/330 can fly across the Atlantic on 2 engines a jumbo can get across it perfectly safely on 3.

Errrrr, they diverted to Manchester... I suppose that's a bit like swimming but your feet don't get wet. You're proving their point though, engine failure at 300ft and still managed to fly over 4500 nm to get everyone to within 20 mins of their original destination, would have never even been reported if the winds weren't so bad over the Atlantic. Like to see you do that in a twin... I agree that doesn't necessarily mean they're safer but they have much more redundancy and can withstand more failures (particularly engine related) and continue safely than a twin. Ian

Sorry to resurrect this old topic but was wondering if anyone ever found an answer to this. I just tried a Canarsie and on passing DHYML, found the visual picture sorely lacking: no approach lights, no race track, no 'T' hotel. I have the FSDT KJFK and was hoping for a bit more off the field. Was there any setting/file/config change I need to make to get these things to appear? Many thanks, Ian

Sorted it by copying all the original textures for Scenery\World\Texture from Disk4 then reapplying GEPro textures. No idea exactly what was causing the problem but this solved it. Hope this helps, Ian

OK, thanks... Using the Ultimate Terrain Setup tool, I've deselected and reselected all the items (thus hopefully correcting any files that were corrupt/missing) and I still get the same issue. On further investigation, it's a worldwide (not just UT) problem. Any ideas what the issue is and how I can fix it? Ian

Dear all, While considering an upgrade to Evo (or other global texture update) I've suddenly noticed all my textures are in perfect squares with little or no blending between the landclass areas. I use GEX and I tried reinstalling the base textures but with no success. Here's a screenshot of what I mean... Does anyone know what file(s)/setting I need to change to stop this from happening? Many thanks, Ian

The QNH back set on the altimeter is 1013 suggesting it's not in the States so the 250 below 10 is less strictly enforced. The reasons I can think of are: -They're late and want to try and make up some time (although by this stage there's not much time to be saved) -They're high on the approach/altitude restriction and need to lose energy so they're diving it off -ATC may have asked them to (for spacing, sequencing, whatever) Hope this helps, Ian

Just headlines I'm afraid, Mitch, there hasn't been any findings released yet. There certainly has been a lot of leaks and the newspapers are reporting a whole load of "facts" they've gleamed from unverifiable sources (as only newspapers can) but there aren't any findings yet. I hope that behind the scenes there are many intellegent, professional people working towards finding out everything they can about the events leading up to the crash and trying to determine at what point this could have been foreseen. I'm sure they will be looking very hard at his previous medical results and how/who they were communcated to, they will also be scouring through DLH and GWI communications to establish exactly what they knew. I'm sure they are also interviewing his friends/family and crew at GWI at length. Once they have this information they can start analysing the data, ultimately making conclusions. They may conclude there was no way to realistically predict it (although that feels unlikely if even half of what the press has been publishing is true) or they will be identifying (probably many) areas for improvement. I'm not a lawyer or the vindictive/revenge sort (which I guess is easy when you don't know anyone involved, I may not be so unemotional if it were my friends/family involved) so I'm not overly fussed about whodunnit or who to sue or which company shold be put out of business. I am a pilot, so I am very interested to know what they think should be done to avoid an event like this in the future. I hope they won't bow to the media frenzy knee jerk reactions that have been called for so far. Having said that, I'm also human and can't help but speculate even based on the highly unreliable information we have so far (so please accept the assertions I make based on very little evidence as there simply isn't any yet). Should he have been at the controls? Absolutely not. He had a history of serious mental disorders (he wasn't just an unhappy chap, he was a bipolar, suicidal, fruit cake) and I'm amazed that that alone didn't remove him from the potential hire pool. That DLH and GWI were prepared to hire him seems like an extraordinary risk. I'm all for not stigmatising mental illness as I am for not stigmatising disability but (as I think Kevin already mentioned) a blind person is not being discriminated against for not being offered a job as a pilot. The questions I think need answering are (amongst others) -how did he get/keep his medical? -did GWI DLH know of this medical past? -if so, what risk assessment did they do based on his medical history? -what extra precautions did they take to ensure his continued ability to operate? -how was this policed/checked? -had anybody ever reported him for anything related to his mental condition? Once we know the answers to these questions (and I mean facts, not newspaper headlines) then I think we'll be in a much better position to determine where the system broke down and how this can be avoided in the future (and for the lawyers out there, who's fault it was and who should pay who how much). I'm very aware that in the absence of any actual facts at the moment, this is is all pure speculation, there may be a whole different side to this we simply don't know about yet.

The official report hasn't been released (or even written) yet so I don't think it's fair we start making our own judgements based on what the media have told us, they're not known for their impartiality, technical knowledge and unemotional reporting on aviation incidents. Having said that, it does look like he did it. My point is that *why* he did it and the factors leading up to him doing it are still very much uncertain. We don't know if it was pre meditated or impulsive. There's a good chance we never will, although I'm sure we'll have numerous opinions from the experts. I agree, it's very worrying that Lufty knew about his previous problems but didn't see fit to keep a closer eye on him (or if they did, they didn't do it very well).

http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004aia&DLID=140185 Hope this helps, Ian